memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Cadet
Cadet a civilian rank How can the cadets be part of the military? For: *They are not enlisted personnel *They are not officers *Their primary function is study at the Academy *They do not serve in Starfleet as regulars - :First off, the category you are trying to move it to doesn't exist. To create new categories you need to propose them over at MA:CS. Second off, even the Wikipedia article calls it a military rank. Third off, whether their primary function is to be a student at the academy is irrelevant, that could be considered their duty assignment. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC) First off, the absence of civilian ranks category is no proof the cadets are military. Second off, since when Wikipedia is regarded as a trustworthy source for Star Trek articles ? Besides, we're talking about Star Trek cadets, not real world cadets. Third off, your speculations are irrelevant as long as they're not backed up by canon references that count cadets amongst military. - :If cadets are considered in the military in the REAL world, then you need canon evidence that they are not in Trek, and you have not provided it. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC) And you consider the cadets military in REAL world solely on the basis of Wikipedia article. - :Do you have evidence to the contrary? I have provided a source. You haven't. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC) There you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet#Civilian_context - ::This article concerns the term "Cadet" as used in Star Trek (as you suggested we should). In Star Trek, Cadet was only (correct me if I'm wrong) used in the military context of an officer-in-training, one who has been admitted into the military establishment (Academy or Academy-level training). Hence why we define it as a "military rank." -- Sulfur 15:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC) And so you do. - :I'd add that nothing in that "civilian context" portion of the article discusses the military academies or military cadets, and therefore does not pertain to this conversation. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Well, I was under the impression, now proven wrong, that Wesley was referred to as a civilian in . - Removing It should be noted that the word "cadet" is often used by Star Trek writers as a generic term, and not as an official rank. This is a common usage, since a Midshipman in the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis is, in fact, the equivalent to a Cadet in other U.S. Military Academies, such as the U.S. Army's West Point. Since Starfleet's ranking system is based on the U.S. Navy's, it's safe to assume that "Midshipman" is the actual rank, and "Cadet" is the generic for any student at the Academy. In other words, it seems that writers in Star Trek may be using interchangeable terms, and not really paying much attention to the actual, real-world meanings. '' ''Also, it may be noted, that in TOS, Kirk had mentioned that Starfleet was a combined service. ("Tomorrow is Yesterday.") This may also explain the interchangeability of the terms. Also, it should be noted, that the Midshipmen in Star Trek II (Such as Peter Preston) were on their Cadet Cruise. This lends further credence to the notion that the terms are, in fact, interchangeable. At any rate, both have been used in canon, and so both should be considered correct. '' :Essay/speculation/wrong POV. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::Removed the opening quote: "''That was not my question, cadet!" :- Rear Admiral , 2368 ( ) ::I don't think that says anything about cadets- it's just a statement. We've removed a similar line from the chair article. --31dot 16:48, February 16, 2012 (UTC) Removed bg note I have removed the above background note as it sounds too much like speculation to me. There could be a million reasons why he wasn't wearing rank insignia in the episode. Perhaps he forgot to put them on when he got dressed that morning? ;) --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:31, April 22, 2015 (UTC) "Cadet" preceding the name? If "cadet" is the last known title to be held by someone, should it always precede their name like , Ensign, etc? For pages like Petrovsky, Finnegan etc? The page for Jean Hajar does this.--LauraCC (talk) 16:42, May 12, 2017 (UTC)